[CRISP-TEAM] Updated proposal draft - reordering answers edit
robachevsky at isoc.org
Tue Dec 23 10:55:41 CET 2014
Michael, Izumi, Alan - thank you for putting this together! Looks good.
Below are some comments, starting with some wording suggestions and more
substantive suggestions further.
> ...and ASN’s to the RIR’s as well as the delegation of the “INADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains to match the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
...and ASN’s to the RIR’s as well as the delegation in the “INADDR.ARPA”
and “IP6.ARPA” DNS tree in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and
> · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is affected.
> The Internet number resource registries.
I suggest using this simple description throughout the text when
answering this question
> However, there are no IANA services or activities related to number resource registries directly affected by NTIA’s stewardship transition.
I am not sure this is true. The number resource allocation is one of the
services in the SoW. The fact that NTIA doesn't play any active role in
the INR distribution doesn't change this fact.
> A description of how policy is developed and established and who is involved in policy development and establishment.
This section contains repetitive text and is incomplete. Suggested text:
The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of
Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by
the IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by
the five RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy
development processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional
policy development process – these processes are open to all
stakeholders regardless of specific background or interest. Links to
each of the five regional PDPs are included under in the RIR Governance
Matrix published on the NRO website [REF].
Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must
ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive
Council (NRO EC) then refers the coordinated proposal to the ASO Address
Council (ASO AC), which reviews the process by which the proposal was
developed and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding,
passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global
There are currently three global policies relating to management of the
global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers [REF]:
(a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet
(b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet
(c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the
There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2,
"Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries".
The global policy development process described in “Global Policy
Development Process Document”[REF] is used for all of the number-related
IANA activities described in Section I, but the policy that
“IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains must be delegated following IPv4
and IPv6 address allocations is specified by the IETF (most recently in
> The ASO MoU is an agreement between the RIR communities and ICANN, as the IANA functions operator;
Suggest dropping "as the IANA functions operator" (in this context ICANN
doesn't act as the IANA operator)
> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN or the ongoing community processes for development of policies relating to those services. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system.
I am not happy that we are mixing operations and policy in one piece, it
way give an impression that NTIA plays an oversight role in the gPDP.
Further, while NTIA transition would not have any significant impact on
the operation, it has no impact on the gPDP.
A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided
by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight
from the current system.
Michael Abejuela wrote on 22/12/14 21:13:
> Hello Everyone,
> Please find attached the updated proposal draft as discussed during the
> conference call earlier today. You will observe both a redline version
> highlighting the changes proposed by myself, Izumi and Alan. In
> addition, a clean version is attached for ease of review that includes
> minor formatting changes.
> Please let me know if you have any questions. Izumi and Alan, I trust I
> was able to capture all of your edits but please review and let me know
> if I have missed any. I look forward to the team’s comments.
> Michael R. Abejuela
> Associate General Counsel
> 3635 Concorde Parkway
> Suite 200
> Chantilly, VA 20151
> (703) 227-9875 (p)
> (703) 263-0111 (f)
> mabejuela at arin.net <mailto:mabejuela at arin.net>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy,
> use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP